Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds 'Execution: synchronous' and 'Task support: forbidden', and clarifies that 'The returned JSON is internal application state' not meant for direct display. It also instructs the agent to summarize and suggest next actions, which is valuable behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively compact and each sentence adds distinct information: classification, execution, task support, output nature, and response guidelines. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it lacks structured separation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Even with an output schema, the description leaves the agent without context on parameter meanings, what exactly constitutes a 'trafficked asset', or how this tool differs from export/preview variants. The high complexity (11 params, 0% schema coverage) requires more contextual guidance to be complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation for any parameter. It doesn't mention that flightId is required or what any of the IDs refer to. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent without essential semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'get' and states the resource 'trafficked assets', clearly indicating it retrieves trafficked assets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like export_trafficked_assets or preview_trafficking_output, so it lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It focuses on response formatting (e.g., 'Use assistantSummary first', 'Never display raw JSON') rather than selection criteria. 'Task support: forbidden' is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.